Consider the following statements regarding AI Action Summit held in Grand Palais, Paris in February 2025 : I. Co-chaired with India, the event builds on the advances made at the Bletchley Park Summit held in 2023 and the Seoul Summit held in 2024. II. Along with other countries, US and UK also signed the declaration on inclusive and sustainable AI. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Shows that major international summits (COP26 example) can be hosted by one country 'in partnership' with another, indicating formal shared hosting/co-hosting arrangements are a documented pattern.

A student could use this pattern to check whether the AI Action Summit had an announced host/co-host (e.g., France in partnership with India) via press releases or official summit pages.

Shows summits can be convened or hosted by an international office/person (UN Secretary‑General hosting a Climate Action Summit), illustrating that different hosting/co‑chairing models exist beyond single-country hosts.

Use this to consider non-country co‑chairing possibilities (e.g., an international organisation or UN office alongside India) and then check summit organisers for such listings.

Describes India's historical role as a co‑founder and active leader in major multilateral summits (Bandung, NAM), showing India has precedent for high-profile summit leadership.

A student could treat India as a plausible co‑chair candidate for a major summit and then seek official Indian government announcements or French host statements to confirm.

Gives an example of a large international summit (Rio Earth Summit) tied to a specific city/venue, reinforcing that summit location information is routinely recorded and published.

Suggests checking venue‑level records (Grand Palais event calendars, Paris municipal announcements) or summit program documents to confirm co‑chair details for the February 2025 event.

Another concrete example (Bali Summit) showing summits produce formal outcome documents and plans, implying organiser lists (hosts/co‑chairs) are typically documented in summit materials.

Encourages looking up the AI Action Summit official outcomes/programme where host/co‑chair names would normally appear to verify whether India was named co‑chair.

Describes a UN 'Climate Action Summit' convened to boost ambition and accelerate actions tied to an existing international agreement — showing summits are used to advance prior commitments.

A student could check whether the Paris AI Action Summit referenced or timed itself relative to Bletchley Park outputs (e.g., pledged timelines or follow‑up actions) to infer continuity.

Explains that COP26 aimed to finalize the Paris rulebook because unresolved items from COP25 were pushed forward — an example of later summits building on and continuing work from earlier ones.

Use this pattern to look for language in Paris 2025 materials showing it intended to finalize or advance items left by Bletchley Park 2023.

Shows the 1992 Earth Summit produced concrete, long‑term outputs (Agenda 21, conventions) illustrating how summit outcomes can create lasting advances.

A student could search Paris 2025 documents for references to specific Bletchley Park agreements becoming formalized or institutionalized.

Lists concrete outcomes and legally binding agreements emerging from a summit, reinforcing that summits often translate earlier progress into formal instruments.

Apply this rule by checking whether the AI Action Summit produced formal agreements or built institutional mechanisms that trace back to Bletchley Park recommendations.

Notes that summit leaders signed declarations and adopted action plans, another pattern where later meetings codify shared commitments.

A student could compare the text of any Paris 2025 declaration to Bletchley Park communiqués for overlapping commitments or language indicating succession.

Describes a pattern where a high‑level 'Action Summit' (UNSG's Climate Action Summit) was timed one year before countries updated pledges — implying summits are used strategically to accelerate follow‑on commitments.

A student could use this pattern to check whether the Paris AI Action Summit was scheduled to follow Seoul 2024 to accelerate commitments or policy updates arising from Seoul.

Explains that COP meetings can carry unresolved issues forward (COP25 → COP26) and that later summits aim to finalize or build on earlier outcomes.

Apply this rule by comparing Seoul 2024 outputs (e.g., communiqués, workstreams) with Paris 2025 agenda or final statements to see if Paris addressed Seoul's unresolved items.

Shows that major summits (Earth Summit) produce concrete action plans (Agenda 21), indicating summits often generate frameworks later summits implement or build upon.

Use this example to look for an 'action plan' or framework from Seoul 2024 and test whether Paris 2025 references or operationalizes it.

Lists thematic, policy‑oriented issues addressed at summits (energy, transport, pollution), illustrating that summits tackle specific technical topics that subsequent meetings can advance.

A student could identify which technical AI topics Seoul covered and see if Paris's sessions or commitments advanced those specific topics.

Provides a historical pattern of recurring world summits (Earth Summit 1992, World Summit 2002), suggesting an iterative summit model where later events build on prior ones.

From this iterative model, check whether Paris 2025 explicitly references Seoul 2024 as part of a continuing summit sequence on AI governance.