Rules Without Models: Why Europe Must Build the AI It Regulates

Counts differ because each database indexes a different set of publications. We treat OpenAlex as the canonical count; Google Scholar is not shown (no API, and crawling it violates its ToS).

For a decade, the European Union has been building a digital constitution, encompassing the General Data Protection Regulation, the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, the Data Governance Act, the Data Act, the AI Act, and the proposed Cloud and AI Development Act. The result is a Europe that others must legally consider but can ignore technologically. Since the Italian Garante’s March 2023 order against OpenAI, evidence has accumulated: Llama 4’s withholding of multimodal rights from EU-domiciled developers, the worldwide disabling of Anthropic’s frontier models under an American export directive, Beijing’s meetings to restrict foreign access to its open-weight models, and, beneath them, the CLOUD Act’s standing exposure of data held by providers subject to American jurisdiction. This pattern is not exclusion but demotion, a digital civitas sine suffragio: conditional access to lesser models on someone else’s terms. The correction is not more regulation but EOSAI, European Open Source AI: a public institution for the models themselves, open source and deployable under Union jurisdiction. Three pathways can achieve it: an industrial consortium, a Member-State vehicle opening national defence resources, and a European Joint Undertaking for multi-decade stability. Distilling models that meet the Open Source AI Definition (OSAID) makes the first two realistic in the near term, and the third buildable on what they establish. EOSAI also reframes European regulation: what is read as a compliance burden becomes, for a capability compliant by design, a competitive advantage in regulated markets, where services on the open models can make it partly self-financing.