Artificiële Intelligentie & Recht
Innovation, Quantum-AI Technology & Law
0

Blog over Kunstmatige Intelligentie, Quantum, Deep Learning, Blockchain en Big Data Law

Blog over juridische, sociale, ethische en policy aspecten van Kunstmatige Intelligentie, Quantum Computing, Sensing & Communication, Augmented Reality en Robotica, Big Data Wetgeving en Machine Learning Regelgeving. Kennisartikelen inzake de EU AI Act, de Data Governance Act, cloud computing, algoritmes, privacy, virtual reality, blockchain, robotlaw, smart contracts, informatierecht, ICT contracten, online platforms, apps en tools. Europese regels, auteursrecht, chipsrecht, databankrechten en juridische diensten AI recht.

Berichten in Governance
Quantum Computational Antitrust: How Quantum Computing Could Reshape Competition Enforcement
Quantum Computational Antitrust: How Quantum Computing Could Reshape Competition Enforcement

Antitrust enforcement is becoming a contest between models. Agencies screen procurement databases with algorithms, firms price with reinforcement learning, and scholars at Stanford's CodeX center have organized the discipline of computational antitrust around a simple premise: enforcement must compute as well as the markets it polices. This analysis asks what happens when the computation itself turns quantum.

Why enforcers and firms already compete with algorithms

Brazil's CADE mines bidding data for cartel fingerprints, Korea scores tenders for collusion risk, and the OECD catalogues the tooling. Experiments meanwhile show that independent AI pricing agents can learn supra-competitive strategies without ever communicating, a form of algorithmic collusion that slips past cartel law's agreement requirement. The enforcement arms race is already running on classical hardware, and the stakes were spelled out early in the Oxford JIPLP work on quantum computing, intellectual property and market power.

What quantum computing could add to merger review and cartel screening

Quantum computers will not "try everything at once." Future fault-tolerant machines may improve particular simulation, optimization, and sampling tasks that merger review poses, although no general enforcement advantage has been demonstrated. None of this is deployed at any agency today, and the essay says so plainly. The nearer-term disruption runs through evidence. Harvest-now-decrypt-later means lawfully seized encrypted cartel archives may become readable mid-investigation once quantum machines can run Shor's algorithm, a rare case of the quantum threat working for enforcers, within hard due-process limits.

Why access to quantum computing becomes a competition question

The deepest question is asymmetry. If quantum forecasting and optimization arrive first at firms that already dominate cloud platforms and patent portfolios, informational advantage compounds into entrenched market power through purely unilateral conduct, with no cartel required. Quantum technology therefore poses competition authorities an access question before it poses an evidence question, and the answers will be set by whoever engages first: standards bodies, cloud gatekeepers, or regulators.

The full analysis sets out a five-part readiness agenda for enforcement agencies this decade, from cryptographic inventories of their own case files and leniency archives to sandboxed pilots of quantum screening tools with pre-registered validation protocols. Read it to see how competition agencies can prepare validation protocols, access safeguards, and scoped pilots before quantum-assisted evidence reaches proceedings.

Meer lezen
Quantum Computing, Governance, Intellectual PropertyMauritz Kopcomputational antitrust, quantum legal informatics, competition law, market power, quantum computing
Responsible Quantum-Enabled Financial Forecasting: What Banks and Supervisors Must Govern Before Quantum Advantage
Responsible Quantum-Enabled Financial Forecasting: What Banks and Supervisors Must Govern Before Quantum Advantage

Banks were talking about quantum computing while the hardware was still a physics demonstration. In 2025, financial institutions reported further hardware experiments, including a hybrid bond-trading study on production-scale data, and these remain research results rather than live production deployments. This analysis separates the verified results from the marketing and asks what responsible quantum finance demands before the technology touches live forecasting.

Which banks ran quantum experiments in 2025, and what they found

The evidence base is suddenly concrete. A JPMorganChase-led research collaboration demonstrated certified randomness on Quantinuum hardware in a Nature paper, a cryptographic and simulation primitive rather than a forecasting result. HSBC and IBM reported up to 34 percent better fill-probability predictions, on their chosen metric and against their own classical baselines, on production-scale bond-trading data. Goldman Sachs researchers priced out what genuine advantage in derivatives would cost in logical qubits. Each result comes with caveats, and the caveats are exactly where governance begins.

How supervisors will apply model risk management to quantum models

Financial regulators already police predictive models, from classical statistics to artificial intelligence, through model risk management regimes like the Federal Reserve's SR 11-7. Quantum forecasting strains that machinery: outputs are probabilistic, hardware noise drifts daily, and in at least one bank experiment the noise itself seemed to help. The essay sets out what quantum-grade validation, documentation, and independent challenge should look like.

Why compute asymmetry and post-quantum migration belong on the same agenda

Two system-level risks frame the institutional ones. If early capability concentrates in a few firms, markets inherit a new compute asymmetry, a market-integrity question with echoes of the concentration concerns we mapped in Intellectual Property in Quantum Computing and Market Power.

The same progress that speeds up forecasting breaks the encryption financial infrastructure depends on. The G7 Cyber Expert Group has warned that adversaries may be harvesting encrypted financial data today to decrypt later, and now urges a coordinated post-quantum migration across the sector. Decades-long confidentiality horizons and expiring cryptography are two sides of one balance sheet.

The conclusion is practical: the governance hooks for quantum technology in finance already exist in model risk management, operational resilience, AI oversight, and cryptographic standards. What is missing is an explicit statement, from supervisors and boards alike, of how quantum capability plugs into each hook. Read the full analysis for the verified experiments, the validation blueprint, and the governance framework.

Meer lezen
Quantum Computing, Governance, InnovationMauritz Kopquantum finance, financial forecasting, responsible quantum technology, model risk, post-quantum cryptography
Mauritz Kop Hosts a Quantum Policy Delegation from Thailand at Stanford Law School (Spring 2024)
Mauritz Kop Hosts a Quantum Policy Delegation from Thailand at Stanford Law School (Spring 2024)

When a government starts writing a quantum strategy, its first draft is usually a list of laboratories and funding lines. The second draft, the one that matters, is about governance. That is the draft visiting delegations came to Stanford Law School to sharpen, and a delegation from Thailand was among them in the spring of 2024.

Why governments bring their quantum strategies to a law school

The hard questions in a national quantum program are rarely about hardware. They concern research security, export controls, standards participation, talent pipelines, and the timing of post-quantum migration, questions where physics, economics, and law meet. A center built to study responsible quantum technology sits on exactly that intersection, which is why quantum policy visits so often route through a law school. The pattern is well documented: Stanford hosted delegations and dignitaries from several continents, including a high-level EU cybersecurity delegation.

How middle powers can influence regional quantum standards and partnerships

Quantum research and industrial capability are developing in many countries beyond the United States and China. A middle power that concentrates on niche strengths, such as sensing for agriculture or health, secure communications, or specialty components in the supply chain, can become indispensable to allies and attractive to investors without ever fielding the largest computer. The prerequisite is governance readiness: rules investors can price, security practices partners can trust, and standards seats occupied early. That playbook is being written now, and Southeast Asian nations are among its most attentive readers.

What a working session between a ministry and a research center produces

A delegation visit works as a stress test. Draft priorities meet unfamiliar objections, assumptions about quantum technology timelines get calibrated against what researchers actually see, and ministries discover which parts of their strategy translate across borders. The output is rarely a document. It is a network of people who can call each other when the drafting gets difficult, and for a visiting government such relationships complement the formal reports and national strategies it commissions.

The full post looks at what the Thai delegation's visit says about quantum diplomacy at working level, and why national quantum strategies take shape in seminar rooms long before they reach a summit.

Meer lezen
Stanford RQT, Governance, PolicyMauritz KopThailand, quantum delegation, quantum policy, Stanford RQT, quantum diplomacy
Statute-Led Quantum Governance: A Legislative Blueprint for the United States
Statute-Led Quantum Governance: A Legislative Blueprint for the United States

On June 22, 2026, the White House signed two quantum executive orders in one afternoon: a national push toward a science-enabling quantum computer, and an accelerated federal migration to post-quantum cryptography. The orders are far-reaching and structurally fragile. A later administration can amend or revoke executive action far more easily than Congress can repeal a statute, and executive action cannot appropriate a dollar or settle the values by which quantum technology will be governed. That work belongs to Congress.

What Congress has in motion in 2026 and why it is still revocable

The 2026 federal landscape is busy and brittle. The National Quantum Initiative reauthorization is moving through both chambers after its predecessor died with the 118th Congress, a $2.5 billion Department of Energy quantum bill waits alongside it, and export controls on quantum computing arrived by interim rule in 2024. Every instrument is revocable, expirable, or reversible. The United States has quantum legislation in the National Quantum Initiative Act and still lacks a comprehensive quantum statute. Governing by summit communiqué instead of binding rule is a wider habit, as our analysis From Kananaskis to Évian shows for the G7.

Why statutes serve foundational technologies better than accreted guidance

Foundational technologies mature on timescales longer than administrations, cut across agency jurisdictions, and allocate power in ways that deserve democratic sanction. The artificial intelligence precedent is cautionary: congressional silence produced a state patchwork in which Colorado's pioneering AI statute was rewritten before it ever took effect. A quantum statute with values-based guardrails, from risk tiers to trials pathways and access equity, is innovation policy in its own right. It gives investors, allies, and the public reasons to trust the ecosystem being built.

The eight-part blueprint for a United States quantum act

The full analysis lays out an eight-part legislative blueprint: capability-based definitions that survive hardware generations, risk-tiered obligations, statutory post-quantum cryptography deadlines, a standing standards mandate for NIST, regulatory sandboxes, calibrated research security, national quantum-advantage missions with a software institute, and workforce plus allied coordination. It merges the reauthorization bills, the DOE act, and the executive orders into one coherent act of Congress.

Europe's Quantum Act proposal is expected in 2026, and the EU has made statute-led governance its brand, from the AI Act's risk tiers to the Quantum Europe Strategy. America's answer should be transatlantic interoperability: shared risk concepts, mutual recognition, aligned export regimes. The reauthorization vehicles moving through both chambers this session give Congress a rare moment when legislative ambition costs little more than drafting. Read the full analysis for the blueprint and the case for using that moment.

Meer lezen
Governance, Quantum Technology, PolicyMauritz Kopquantum governance, US quantum legislation, EU Quantum Act, post-quantum cryptography, standards
The Quantum Internet: Teleportation, Entanglement, QKD, PQC and Hybrid Security Strategies
The Quantum Internet: Teleportation, Entanglement, QKD, PQC and Hybrid Security Strategies

The quantum internet will do something classical networks cannot do at all: distribute entanglement between cities, teleport quantum states, and detect interception at the protocol level. This explainer walks the whole stack for a legal and policy audience: teleportation, quantum key distribution over fiber and satellite, the NIST post-quantum standards, and the hybrid strategies that boards and ministries must adopt long before the network itself matures. The physics is subtle. The policy consequences are concrete and come with deadlines.

What Delft, The Hague and the Micius satellite have already demonstrated

The milestones are no longer thought experiments. In 2024, researchers entangled quantum processors in Delft and The Hague over 25 kilometers of ordinary underground telecom fiber, a genuine metropolitan quantum network link. China's Micius satellite has distributed quantum keys between ground stations 7,600 kilometers apart, securing a videoconference between Beijing and Vienna. The strategic significance of who builds and controls these networks is examined in the CNAS Entanglement Edge quantum networking report. Teleportation itself is routinely misread: it transfers a quantum state using entanglement plus a classical signal. No matter moves, nothing exceeds light speed, and the original state is destroyed.

Why the post-quantum deadlines exist years before the hardware

The urgency is cryptographic. A future quantum computer running Shor's algorithm breaks RSA and elliptic-curve encryption, and adversaries are already recording traffic to decrypt later, the harvest-now-decrypt-later attack. NIST answered in August 2024 with its first finalized post-quantum standards (ML-KEM, ML-DSA, SLH-DSA) and selected the code-based HQC in March 2025 as a future backup. Migration timelines from U.S. and European authorities cluster around 2030 to 2035. For long-lived data, interception already creates the confidentiality risk, because retained ciphertext may become readable later.

How layered security replaces the search for a single quantum fix

The central argument is architectural. Security in the quantum transition comes from hybrid strategies: classical plus post-quantum key establishment, AES-256 payload encryption, QKD only on high-value links where its trusted-node risks are consciously accepted, and crypto-agility as the governing design principle. The analysis closes with a concrete sequence for enterprises and governments: build the cryptographic inventory, triage data by confidentiality lifetime, write post-quantum requirements into procurement and audits, and run quantum-network pilots with candid trusted-node risk assessments. Read on to see how physics, standards, and statecraft interlock, and why the migration calendar is an obligation of today.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Quantum Computing, GovernanceMauritz Kopquantum internet, QKD, post-quantum cryptography, AES-256, quantum teleportation, hybrid security
Geopolitical Risk to Critical Raw Materials in Quantum Computing: Stanford GTG White Paper by Lee, Grotto and Kop
Geopolitical Risk to Critical Raw Materials in Quantum Computing: Stanford GTG White Paper by Lee, Grotto and Kop

The quantum race is usually told in qubit counts and error rates. A 2025 Stanford GTG white paper by Min-Ha Lee, Andrew J. Grotto, and Mauritz Kop tells it as a story about minerals: the critical raw materials that every major quantum-computing hardware modality requires, and the short list of countries that control them.

Which materials every qubit technology needs

Strontium and ytterbium for neutral atoms, niobium for superconducting circuits, indium for bump-bonds, tantalum for oscillators, and helium-3 for the dilution refrigerators that cool it all to millikelvin temperatures. Every qubit modality carries its own mineral bill, and many inputs have supplier geographies measured in a handful of countries. About 90 percent of niobium is mined in Brazil alone, and China dominates both the mining and the processing of the rare-earth elements that quantum lasers, magnets, and optics consume. Add isotopically enriched silicon-28 and specialty photonics, and the bill of materials reads like a stress test of globalization.

How the authors score the choke points

The paper's contribution is a sector-specific risk methodology: score each material on supply-chain vulnerability, exploitability, and strategic impact, instead of relying on cross-sectoral national lists that blur what quantum computing needs. The exercise confirms the rare earths as critical and elevates a sleeper, high-purity molybdenum, which the report identifies as an under-examined enabler in the device and substrate supply chain. It is the same strategic terrain mapped in An LSI Test for Securing the Quantum Industrial Commons, now extended to the mineral layer.

Why China's 2024 and 2025 export controls make this urgent

The risk is already active. Building on its 2023 gallium and germanium controls and its 2024 antimony controls, Beijing tightened export controls in December 2024 and extended them in 2025 to bismuth, indium, molybdenum, tellurium, tungsten, and heavy rare earths, and prices for several of them spiked. The authors' warning cuts both ways: concentrated supply invites coercion, and unilateral controls invite self-sufficiency drives that fracture the very supply chains they aim to protect. Multilateral coordination, stockpiling, recycling, and diversified sourcing work best before an industry scales, and quantum is still, briefly, at that stage.

The full post walks through the methodology, the materials inventory, the 2024 and 2025 control wave, the follow-on Quantum Criticality Index research agenda, and why supply-chain concentration is becoming a standard due-diligence question for technology counsel.

Meer lezen
Geopolitics, Quantum Computing, GovernanceMauritz Kopcritical raw materials, quantum supply chain, helium-3, export controls, geopolitics
War on the Rocks Publishes 'Before Q-Day: The Race to Quantum First'
War on the Rocks Publishes 'Before Q-Day: The Race to Quantum First'

One Race, Five Fronts

War on the Rocks published Before Q-Day: The Race to Quantum First on July 20, 2026 — a new essay by Mauritz Kop, founder of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, and Joseph Federici of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Its argument: the United States and its allies should field strategically significant quantum capabilities before China does, and should run cryptography, quantum-AI, networks, sensing, and the supply chain as one race under one office. The Commission's goal is Quantum First by 2030. The essay opens with the threat that makes the goal urgent — hard drives filling up with harvested encrypted traffic, waiting for a quantum computer to read the vulnerable public-key layer — and walks each front: federal migration deadlines for high-value systems whose private-sector counterparts are, in the authors' words, "only being asked politely"; a speculative "X-Ray City" scenario in which quantum sensors fuse with AI into a surveillance layer the authors say no policy document yet addresses; China's quantum-secure communications network of more than 12,000 kilometers and the risk of network standards written in Beijing; and a supply chain that, in the essay's assessment, no single country can build alone.

From Bletchley Park to European Boardrooms

The essay is the natural successor to "A Bletchley Park for the Quantum Age," carrying the Bletchley method — science, engineering, operations, and alliance management as one integrated system — from the cryptographic migration to the entire quantum ecosystem. Kop writes that it grows from the scholarship of the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology, inaugurated in 2023 during Mark Rutte's Stanford visit, with work published in Science, Nature Physics, and the Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Berkeley law journals. Read from Europe, the essay previews questions heading for European agendas: migration deadlines that travel through procurement chains and G7 coordination, a cryptographic inventory that is turning into a board-level question for entities covered by NIS2 and DORA, and export-control and certification choices that will shape the European quantum market. In this post we summarize the essay's five fronts, place it in the Stanford quantum governance corpus, and set out our analysis of what Quantum First asks of European general counsel, compliance teams, and boards — starting with the contracts their organizations sign this year.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Governance, PolicyMauritz KopWar on the Rocks, Quantum Governance, Post-Quantum Cryptography, Quantum First, Supply Chains
Industriepolitiek en quantumrecht: de Amerikaanse decreten van juni 2026
Industriepolitiek en quantumrecht: de Amerikaanse decreten van juni 2026

Op 22 juni 2026 tekende het Witte Huis twee presidentiële besluiten die samen één beweging vormen: de Verenigde Staten verheffen quantumtechnologie tot instrument van industriepolitiek. Het eerste besluit lanceert een nationaal programma voor de eerste quantumcomputer die het tijdperk van quantum-gedreven wetenschappelijke ontdekking moet inluiden; het tweede legt de federale overheid harde deadlines op voor de migratie naar post-quantumcryptografie. Wie de twee naast elkaar legt, ziet geen losse beleidsdaden maar een strategie — en die strategie heeft juridische gevolgen tot ver buiten de Amerikaanse grens.

Wat er verandert voor exportcontrole en investeringstoetsing

Zodra een staat een opkomende technologie tot industriepolitiek verheft, bewegen exportcontrole, onderzoeksbeveiliging en buitenlandse-investeringstoetsing mee. Quantum belandt daarmee in dezelfde categorie als halfgeleiders: een dual-use-technologie waar nationale veiligheid en economische zekerheid samenvallen. Voor Europese onderzoekers en bedrijven die met Amerikaanse partners samenwerken, verandert de context waarin afspraken over intellectuele eigendom, data en personeel tot stand komen — ook zonder dat er één regel Europees recht wijzigt.

De cryptografische klok tikt tot 2030

Het tweede besluit zet de scherpste juridische klok: federale high-value assets en high-impact-systemen moeten uiterlijk eind 2030 over op door NIST goedgekeurde post-quantumcryptografie. De achterliggende dreiging is harvest-now-decrypt-later: data die vandaag wordt onderschept, is straks alsnog leesbaar. Voor organisaties met langlevende vertrouwelijke gegevens verschuift de migratie daarmee van ICT-project naar zorgplichtvraag — een verschuiving die via artikel 32 AVG ook de Europese praktijk raakt. Hoe u die inventarisatie bestuurlijk aanpakt, leest u in onze analyse van de cryptografische inventaris als bestuursdossier.

Een transatlantische maatstaf in plaats van twee reflexen

De Verenigde Staten sturen via missiegericht overheidsgeld en beveiligingsmaatregelen; de Europese Unie reguleert kunstmatige intelligentie (artificiële intelligentie) en straks mogelijk ook quantum via horizontale kaders die innovatie en grondrechten in balans houden. Beide logica's hebben een gedeelde maatstaf nodig. In deze analyse leggen we uit waarom de LSI-toets — het smalste effectieve, innovatiebehoudende instrument — die maatstaf kan zijn, wat de Amerikaanse termijnen betekenen voor Nederlandse en Europese organisaties, en waarom wie nu begint met exportclassificatie en een cryptografisch migratieplan straks minder last heeft van een deadline die via een ander rechtsstelsel toch op de mat valt.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Governance, PolicyMauritz KopQuantumtechnologie, Exportcontrole, Post-quantumcryptografie, Industriepolitiek
From Kananaskis to Évian: Will the G7 Govern Quantum, or Keep Describing It?
From Kananaskis to Évian: Will the G7 Govern Quantum, or Keep Describing It?

When G7 leaders meet in Évian-les-Bains from June 15 to 17, 2026, quantum technology sits on the leaders' table for a second consecutive year. In a new CIGI op-ed, Stanford and CIGI legal scholar Mauritz Kop argues that the era of shared values and summit language has run its course: between the Kananaskis Common Vision and the OECD Recommendation on Quantum Technologies, the conceptual groundwork is done. What remains is implementation — and implementation is what voluntary coordination delivers slowly, unevenly, or never.

From a Common Vision to Working Machinery

Kananaskis named the right concerns in June 2025 but built light machinery — no timelines, no benchmarks, no procurement commitments. A year on, Kop puts the question to Évian directly: does the G7 intend to govern quantum, or to keep describing it? His answer is not another principles instrument but a delivery body with named products and deadlines, reporting back to leaders at the 2027 summit.

Five Decisions for Évian

The piece sets out five decisions leaders can take in France: post-quantum cryptography migration milestones for critical infrastructure; trusted and resilient quantum supply chains; standards-based governance backed by procurement; dual-use coordination through a least trade-restrictive, security-sufficient and innovation-preserving (LSI) test; and vigilance on the market structure of an industry already concentrating around a few compute-, patent- and talent-rich incumbents.

Each decision turns a value into something auditable. The "harvest-now, decrypt-later" threat makes cryptographic migration a present-tense problem with an unknown deadline; when Google gives itself until 2029, governments that have given themselves ten years should take notice. The same logic runs through supply-chain chokepoints, technical standards and export controls — defaults that will be written by someone, and better written deliberately than by accident.

The Window Is Still Open

Quantum is leaving the laboratory and becoming strategic infrastructure, a shift central banks already treat as systemic. The window for writing the rules of the road remains open, Kop warns, but it will not stay open forever. For the legal and policy background to the dual-use argument, see our coverage of the LSI test for securing the quantum industrial commons.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Governance, PolicyMauritz KopQuantum Governance, G7, CIGI, Post-Quantum Cryptography, OECD, Dual-Use, Market Power, Supply Chains, Quantum Technology
NATO StratCom Features Mauritz Kop as Subject Matter Expert in Workshop Video on Quantum and Cognitive Sovereignty
NATO StratCom Features Mauritz Kop as Subject Matter Expert in Workshop Video on Quantum and Cognitive Sovereignty

The NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence engaged Mauritz Kop as a subject-matter expert for its Riga workshop The Integrity of Reality and Cognitive Sovereignty—via a thirty-minute video interview recorded as study material for participants and as input to the Centre's threatcasting work.

A video briefing for Riga

Held in early June 2026, in the week of the Centre's flagship Riga StratCom Dialogue, the workshop examined what happens to shared truth when both conflict and communication are increasingly automated. Kop's recorded interview adds the layer the strategic-communications field is only beginning to map: the quantum layer. His opening line does the analytical work of a whole briefing—the past is not yet stable. The argument extends the case he made when the Hoover Institution invited him to speak on quantum, democracy, and authoritarianism.

Three quantum pressures on the mind's privacy

The interview names three converging pressures on cognitive sovereignty: civic-scale quantum sensing that, in principle, could resolve subsurface and interior spaces from public rights-of-way—what Kop calls the X-Ray City scenario; quantum-enhanced biosensing and brain-computer interfaces that open the inference of mental states; and the temporal instability of the cryptographic record under harvest-now, decrypt-later collection. For the first two, Kop argues for capability protection—prohibition-grade guardrails at the infrastructure layer, not consent forms after deployment.

Why communicators should care about cryptography

An adversary who can retroactively forge or contest the signed record does not need to fabricate convincingly—only to seed doubt at scale. The interview's prescription is precision over speed: the LSI test for every proposed control, standards-first governance, and verifiable allied migration to post-quantum cryptography as the strategic-communications measure rarely recognized as one.

Meer lezen
Quantum Technology, Geopolitics, GovernanceHenry QuentirMauritz Kop, National Security, Quantum Governance, Geopolitics, Post-Quantum Cryptography, NATO, NATO StratCom COE, Cognitive Sovereignty, Riga StratCom Dialogue, Threatcasting, Quantum Sensing
OECD Recommendation on Quantum Technologies Builds on Responsible Quantum Principles Developed at Stanford RQT
OECD Recommendation on Quantum Technologies Builds on Responsible Quantum Principles Developed at Stanford RQT

On May 28, 2026, the OECD Council adopted OECD/LEGAL/0508, the Recommendation of the Council on Quantum Technologies—the first intergovernmental standard to set shared principles for the responsible development and use of trusted quantum technologies. Its four high-level principles and five policy recommendations will read as familiar to anyone who has followed responsible-quantum scholarship, because the instrument's core ideas track work that the Stanford Center for Responsible Quantum Technology and its founder, Mauritz Kop, helped build over the previous half-decade.

The first intergovernmental quantum standard

Developed through a multistakeholder process—forty-seven experts from twenty-six nationalities across four scoping meetings in 2025, building on the OECD's January 2025 Quantum Technologies Policy Primer—the Recommendation asks all Actors to promote innovation that respects democratic values, to prevent and mitigate harms across the technology lifecycle, to promote secure and broad access, to facilitate collaboration, and to foster accountability and trustworthiness. It is non-binding but normatively weighty: thirty-eight adherents are now expected to implement it through their own legal frameworks. The OECD's broader responsible-quantum-technology agenda has long argued that the field needs exactly this kind of shared, anticipatory baseline.

A visible lineage, not a formal citation

The Recommendation names no academic source, and nothing in its text formally credits Stanford RQT. What it shows is conceptual lineage. Its lifecycle-embedded, values-first framing echoes the Ten Principles for Responsible Quantum Innovation; its post-quantum-cryptography and quantum-resilient-infrastructure language draws on the same concern with cryptanalysis that animated Kop's 2021 Yale legal-ethical framework; its accountability-and-trustworthiness principle parallels families in the World Economic Forum Quantum Computing Governance Principles he helped conceptualize; and its call for science-based standards mirrors the standards-first program he and colleagues set out in Science. Kop was among the experts consulted in the course of the OECD's quantum-policy work, an engagement that sits within a longer record of peer-reviewed calls for responsible quantum technology.

Why anticipation is the right posture

Both the Recommendation and the scholarship it echoes favor agile, forward-looking, evidence-based governance—and the physics explains why. Quantum technologies draw their power from superposition and entanglement, phenomena that do not scale gently: an entanglement-enabled sensor can cross a sensitivity threshold, and a cryptanalytically relevant machine can render trusted public-key cryptography suddenly breakable, in ways that arrive nonlinearly. Governance that waits for a capability to mature arrives too late by construction. This is the case the responsible-quantum field, including the Quantum-ELSPI research agenda, has pressed since 2021—and the case OECD/LEGAL/0508 now encodes for thirty-eight economies.

What comes next

The Recommendation tasks the OECD's Digital Policy Committee and Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy to develop practical guidance and to report back within five years, so the standard is built to evolve with the technology. Its arrival signals that these responsible-quantum arguments have reached the institutions that set international norms—a quiet but consequential validation of work begun years earlier at Stanford.

Meer lezen
Stanford RQT, Governance, Quantum TechnologyHenry QuentirMauritz Kop, Quantum Governance, Stanford RQT, Governance, Policy, Standards, Human Rights, Ethics, OECD, OECD-LEGAL-0508, Post-Quantum Cryptography, Anticipatory Governance, International Standards, Responsible Quantum Innovation