Research instrument

The Refusal-Capacity Map.

Activated where, dormant where, absent where?

The living instrument introduced in Section 5 of The Power to Say No (SSRN 7454698). Arranged by institutional form and enforceability, not as a universal ranking.

Contribute a row Read the map

Read the capacities separately.

Section 5 distinguishes answerability, accountability capacity and refusal capacity. Refusal capacity is “the power to contest, condition, or stop a deployment before an output becomes a decision”. Accountability capacity does not by itself establish that power.

Status key: Active means an instrument or activation mechanism is operating, including soft guidance or a law in force whose obligations apply later. It does not mean every row confers a veto. Dormant means held capacity not exercised in the way mapped here. Nothing yet means no binding deployment-refusal instrument is documented in that row; organising or prospective law may already exist. These are draft editorial labels for review, not quotations or updated legal findings.

Institutional forms

Where the power sits.

Open “Scope and source” for the boundary of each entry. The table reproduces the paper's documentary position, not a fresh verification of current law.

Source: FINAL8, Section 5, with its cited notes. Draft classifications pending Solidarity AI review.
Jurisdiction	Body/instrument	Form	Status	Binding?
Germany	Works council; BetrVG s 87(1) No. 6 Scope and source “a genuine ex ante veto, enforceable in labour courts”. The Hamburg private-browser-account boundary is retained: no employer access to usage data meant no monitoring capability. FINAL8, Section 5: Statutory co-determination; notes 27 and 28.	Statutory co-determination	Active	Yes, within the statutory scope
United States	Writers Guild of America agreements Scope and source “binding consent, compensation, and refusal terms on AI”, renewed and extended through a full contract cycle. The floor must be re-won each cycle. FINAL8, Section 5: The bargained floor; note 29.	Bargained floor	Active	Yes, signatories for their terms
United States	SAG-AFTRA agreements Scope and source “They bind signatories for their terms.” Contractual refusal capacity, not statutory power. FINAL8, Section 5: The bargained floor; note 30.	Bargained floor	Active	Yes, signatories for their terms
Transnational	IESBA technology-related revisions to the Code Scope and source Effective from 15 December 2024. “This is accountability capacity, promulgation at method level”, not a general deployment veto. FINAL8, Section 5: The binding code cascade; note 31.	Binding code cascade	Active	Adoption-dependent
Scotland	Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland Scope and source Adopted the revised Code with effect from 1 January 2025. “The cascade is adoption-dependent and uneven.” FINAL8, Section 5: The binding code cascade; note 32.	Binding code cascade	Active	Through adopted enforceable code
India	Institute of Chartered Accountants of India; revised Code of Ethics, thirteenth edition Scope and source Effective from 1 April 2026. Method-level accountability through national adoption. FINAL8, Section 5: The binding code cascade; note 32.	Binding code cascade	Active	Through adopted enforceable code
England and Wales	Bar Standards Board; AI guidance Scope and source In force 18 May 2026, “tying AI use to the barrister's existing core duties”. Existing duties and disciplinary powers are not described as optional. FINAL8, Section 5: The guidance shelf; note 33.	Guidance shelf	Active	No new binding method standard
England and Wales	Solicitors Regulation Authority Scope and source “guidance that maps AI use onto existing duties”. Soft activation is not a deployment veto. FINAL8, Section 5: The guidance shelf; note 33.	Guidance shelf	Active	No new binding method standard
Canada	Canadian law societies Scope and source “guidance that maps AI use onto existing duties”. Soft activation is not a deployment veto. FINAL8, Section 5: The guidance shelf; note 33.	Guidance shelf	Active	No new binding method standard
Australia	Australian health practitioner regulator Scope and source “guidance that maps AI use onto existing duties”. Soft activation is not a deployment veto. FINAL8, Section 5: The guidance shelf; note 33.	Guidance shelf	Active	No new binding method standard
Brazil	Brazilian bar Scope and source “guidance that maps AI use onto existing duties”. Soft activation is not a deployment veto. FINAL8, Section 5: The guidance shelf; note 33.	Guidance shelf	Active	No new binding method standard
United States	More than two dozen state bar bodies Scope and source “guidance that maps AI use onto existing duties”. Soft activation is not a deployment veto. FINAL8, Section 5: The guidance shelf; note 33.	Guidance shelf	Active	No new binding method standard
Japan	Japanese federation Scope and source “guidance that maps AI use onto existing duties”. Soft activation is not a deployment veto. FINAL8, Section 5: The guidance shelf; note 33.	Guidance shelf	Active	No new binding method standard
European Union	AI Act; employer-deployers of high-risk systems Scope and source “inform workers' representatives and affected workers before workplace use”. Section 5 states that the amending regulation entered into force on 27 July 2026 and that the relevant high-risk obligations apply from 2 December 2027 for standalone listed systems. Information, not refusal power. FINAL8, Section 5: Information rights; note 36.	Information rights	Active	Yes, with deferred application stated in paper
Spain	Workers' Statute; works councils Scope and source Amended in 2021. Information on “the parameters, rules, and instructions behind algorithmic systems affecting working conditions”. “Information rights are the veto's shadow”. FINAL8, Section 5: Information rights; note 37.	Information rights	Active	Yes, information entitlement
Canada	Medical regulators; deliberate regulatory deferral Scope and source “Medical regulators have in places expressly deferred”. Dormancy is not absence. FINAL8, Section 5: Documented dormancy; note 38.	Documented dormancy	Dormant	Statutory capacity, not an exercised AI method standard
Across jurisdictions	Most bar councils outside the guidance jurisdictions; engineering and journalism Scope and source “accountability capacity held and unexercised”. This is the paper's documentary finding, not a claim that no duties exist. FINAL8, Section 5: Documented dormancy.	Documented dormancy	Dormant	No binding AI instrument identified here
Kenya; majority-world AI supply chain	African Content Moderators Union; Data Labelers Association in Kenya Scope and source The African Content Moderators Union was established in Nairobi in May 2023. The paper records organising already under way, “building accountability capacity from nothing”. Nothing yet refers to a documented binding refusal instrument, not to an absence of organising. FINAL8, Section 5: The missing bottom rung; note 40.	Missing bottom rung	Nothing yet	No binding deployment-refusal instrument identified here
Global	Trade union alliance of content moderators Scope and source Formed in 2025. The construction pathway is emerging; it is not presented as an established statutory veto. FINAL8, Section 5: The missing bottom rung; note 40.	Missing bottom rung	Nothing yet	No binding deployment-refusal instrument identified here
India	Bar Council of India; Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., 2 July 2026 Scope and source Section 5 lists “court-ordered activation (India)” and expressly refers to Section 4's anchor case. The date and case name identify that cross-referenced case. No completed binding AI method code is asserted. FINAL8, Section 5: Closing activation-mechanisms paragraph; Documented dormancy, cross-reference to Section 4.	Court-ordered activation	Active	Court direction; not a deployment veto
India	Securities regulator; intermediary regulations amended in 2025 Scope and source “every regulated entity solely responsible for the outputs of the AI tools it uses”. Responsibility is not itself a deployment veto. FINAL8, Section 5: The guidance shelf; note 35.	General regulator	Active	Yes, regulated-entity responsibility
Thailand	Draft AI law Scope and source Listed as a prospective activation mechanism. No enacted refusal power is claimed. FINAL8, Section 5: Closing activation-mechanisms paragraph; note 42.	Statutory sectoral empowerment, prospective	Nothing yet	No, prospective only
Canada	Court AI notices; 2023 cascade across seven courts Scope and source “fast, binding on the filer, and leaves the professional body exactly where it was.” FINAL8, Section 5: Closing activation-mechanisms paragraph; note 43.	Judicial practice direction	Active	Yes, on the filer

Contribute to the living instrument

Your profession. Your country.

Could any body in your country refuse an AI deployment in your profession?

Contributions are research leads for checking, not automatic additions to the map. Please do not include confidential work, client details or sensitive personal information.

Field Notes

Research and teaching on AI and professional responsibility. Sent occasionally. Unsubscribe at any time.

Open Field Notes sign-up if the embedded form does not load.

Newsletter sign-up is separate from the contribution or programme waitlist. Privacy notice.