South Korea Emulates EU’s Model of Comprehensive AI Regulation

By Mahak Bhardwaj

Introduction

With the advent of advanced-level technology and regular rise in its potential, Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) has the potential to change the world towards the better and help us understand the budding risks associated with it. Such advancements in technology are leading countries to drive their legislation into a more systematic, structured, and secure framework. One such example is that of the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (“EU AI Act”), approved by the EU Parliament on 13^th March 2024, terming it to be the world’s first comprehensive horizontal legal framework. With set consistent standards across the EU for transparency and data quality, its stringent rules and substantial penalties go up to €35 million or 7% of global annual revenue, whichever is greater, towards the far-reaching influence beyond EU boundaries. It is estimated that such acerbity shall have a profound impact on businesses operating withing the EU.

This aisle is now followed on by South Korea with its AI Basic Act, which addresses the ethical, social and legal challenges this transformative technology poses. This blog, thus, deals with an analysis of the said comprehensive act and its way forward.

South Korea’s initiatives to follow the EU AI Act’s footsteps

Approved by South Korea’s National Assembly on 26^th December 2024, and scheduled to take effect in January 2026, the AI Basic Act blends nineteen fragmented regulatory proposals into a single and comprehensive framework, thereby putting the country among the pioneers in Asia which uses a uniform AI governance model, reflecting the country’s aspirations to lead in innovation and responsible deployment of AI.

First,,

The Act has three fundamental goals:[1]

National AI Infrastructure, wherein the National AI Committee, which is established by legislation, will supervise the application of AI regulations at the highest governmental levels. The AI Safety Research Institute will support this organization by concentrating on making sure AI development is trustworthy and safe. 

Second,,

The act aims towards assistance for the development of AI through the establishment of an AI data centre to speed up technological advancement, improved support for research and development, and access to academic data are among the provisions. These policies are intended to foster an environment that stimulates innovation and  public-private investment.

Third,

The act aims to address and minimize the risks associated with AI. It introduces legal protections for generative and high-risk AI technologies, focusing on ethical use, transparency, and minimal societal disruption.

Analysis

This act stands out as it categorizes and maps out every AI system according to its risk potential. For instance, any AI systems being used in sensitive fields like healthcare or hiring come under tight regulation. Specific guidelines are in place for “high-impact AI” regarding the use and monitoring of it, which also entails comprehensive risk management strategies and education of the users. Besides, the Act imposes the requirement on generative artificial intelligence to disclose sources from which it derives its outputs to reduce the chances of misinformation.

The Act creates several authorities, each with a specific role, for the purpose of law implementation and monitoring compliance with the law. The National AI Committee is going to be the most important policy body and it will set the strategic direction of the work and monitor how the strategies are implemented. An AI Safety Research Institute will study AI technologies in detail to understand what hazards they pose and how to use them safely. These institutions intend to design and promote a usable ecosystem that has deepened accountability and high level of innovation.

It can be said that this law is the most unusual because it requires AI service providers that operate from abroad to select a domestic representative once they meet set conditions. It follows that any foreign company which conducts business within the geography of South Korea will have a local agent that is liable for whatever activities are done while the company is within South Korean jurisdiction. In this way, Korea protects itself from the risks posed from freely available foreign technologies and is in line with the international movement towards the control of digital services transacted across borders.

The Act, on the other hand, introduces new risks and opportunities for established businesses in the country. It’s a unique opportunity context as well, with the government investing in data infrastructure and extension of support to SMEs with great growth and investment potential in the sector. Indeed, the risk lies in the fact that the implementation of this new act isn’t going to be in place until January 2026[2]After a year-long transition period, the expectation for compliance and compliance procedures, such as the requirement for risk management plans and the anticipated increasing operational costs as a result, may be a constraint for firms utilizing high-risk AI systems.

South Korea’s approach resembles, yet differs considerably from, other legislative systems like the European Union’s AI Act. Both models, by subtly categorizing AI systems according to their social effect, employ a heavily risk-based approach to regulation. 70% of your text is likely AI-generated

South Korean law stresses support measures far more than punishment in case of non-compliance but is significantly less punitive than the European model. It therefore demonstrates a much greater commitment to creating broad innovation and, at the same time, integrates crucial safeguards. International collaboration provisions are indeed present in South Korea’s AI Basic Act. The government will also attract the best global talent and forge strong intercountry relationships to accelerate AI research and development activities to a great extent. Therefore, a wide and global view to South Korea’s legislation gives a push to the ‘always-changing technological landscape’. This increases its position as a leader in ethical AI.

With these groundbreaking legislations in sight, several critical areas need to be focused on as preparation for their implementation. Public awareness campaigns will be crucial to educate the public on the implications of AI technology and build trust in its usage, since the success of the Act remains heavily reliant on further subordinate legislation like technical guidelines and administrative notices. Although there is much work still to be done, South Korea can take the lead in this global wave of artificial intelligence with solid and continued efforts from multiple levels of government and industry leaders combined with international collaborations.

Brussel’s Effect

The recent adoption of the Basic Law for AI Development and Trust-Based Establishment is an open case for the Brussels effect[3], with EU regulations shaping global political design. With EU guidance, South Korea seeks to develop a reliable AI ecosystem that harmonizes ethical protection and innovation. This strategic synchrony is not merely a topic of internal regulation, but it places us in a strong position to keep Korea in a global AI economy compatible with international norms.

One of the main similarities between the two guidelines is tensions around transparency and accountability. Laws in Korea require that AI operators be notified when using high shock or generative AI. In that case, people know that AI interacts with generated communications. Materials generated in AI should be marked significantly if there is a strong similarity in the actual situation to prevent misinformation. The law also implements strict risk management rules that enforce end-to-end security solutions for AI providers with strong computing capabilities or potential social impacts. These obligations are the continuation of the EU strategy focusing on the ethical use of AI and the protection of consumers.

The Brussels effect is particularly in harmony with EU standards, such as South Korea, one of the leading countries in technology, before several other countries design full-fledged AI laws. In this way, Korea has further improved its Ki-Governance system and has maintained the AI sector locally around the world. This trend reveals the growing role of the EU as a regulatory superpower. This will allow AI law to serve as a blueprint in countries where they want to coordinate ethical responsibility and innovation. While AI government is developing, South Korea’s approach shows how EU regulations continue to influence politics beyond Europe and affect AI’s future at a global level.

A. Will other Countries follow the lead of the AI’s Regulation?

The EU’s AI Act is expected to be the world’s first comprehensive legal framework on AI, and it is already changing the global narrative on the governance of AI. But the answer to the said question seems to be affirmative according to history.

We’ve seen this before. The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) revolutionized data privacy, prompting countries like Brazil, India, and Japan to introduce similar laws. Now, the EU is setting the gold standard for AI regulation, and governments worldwide are paying attention.

B. Why the EU AI Act matters globally?

One of the most significant reasons other nations will end up embracing the same AI regulations is straightforward: market access. The EU is a huge economic force, and companies that wish to enter it will be required to adapt to its AI laws. As opposed to running under various distinctive policies, most nations might simply prefer to comply with the EU’s framework to simplify things for groups and traders.
however, it’s now not simply alternate.

AI is evolving fast, and international governments are under pressure to deal with risks like bias, misinformation, and activity displacement. the EU’s technique – a chance-based category system with strict responsibilities for high-danger AI- offers an established manner to regulate AI without stifling innovation.

C. Who’s already following the EU’s lead?

The EU’s effect is already evident.

1. South Korea has adopted a comparable approach, incorporating key factors of the EU’s method , inclusive of chance categorization and transparency mandates.
   Brazil, Canada, and Japan are among the many of growing AI tips based on corresponding standards.
2. The USA[4] is presently debating national AI legal guidelines; however, states like California are introducing AI guidelines in step with the ecu’s consciousness on transparency and responsibility.

Also, we should not forget the effect of fundamental tech groups, including Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI, which operate on a global scale. These businesses can also start adopting EU requirements universally to ensure compliance, doubtlessly encouraging different governments to align their AI policies with the European framework. 

• Legislative Strategy: How Is South Korea and the EU are Developing AI Regulation?

As AI adjusts the way many industries operate, governments around the arena are scrambling to craft guidelines that stabilize innovation with accountability.  Of those, the EU and South Korea have set up their own precise regimes for AI governance, making them leaders among the frontrunners. Although each percentage a danger-based angle, a more in-depth observation of the two exhibits on exceptional levels of priorities — even as the European method focuses specifically on ethics, human rights and customer protection, South Korea pursues an AI enablement approach that helps AI market increase, as well as transparency.
The EU AI Act adopts a precautionary regulatory stance, favouring risk mitigation to unprecedented innovation.

AI structures fall under three categories: unacceptable[5], excessive danger, and restrained-risk, with stringent obligations for high-threat uses. Transparency is paramount – choices made by AI have to be explainable, and organizations are required to alert customers when they engage with AI.  The EU also levies steep fines for non-compliance, just like that of GDPR’s strict enforcement. This systematic, ethics-led method is already being felt in international AI coverage as corporations and governments outside the European Union adapt their AI regulations to catch up.
South Korea, though motivated by means of the EU, has a more laissez-faire and business-friendly regulatory technique to AI. It categorizes AI structures by using chance; however, in place of mandating strict authorities, it fosters enterprises’ self-compliance. AI content wishes to be explicitly marked, and groups have to ensure responsible AI implementation. South Korea’s model, however, focuses on AI innovation and global competitiveness, ensuring that companies may additionally create AI solutions without overwhelming levels of regulatory limitations. This renders South Korea’s version more flexible to short adjustments in AI technology.

The dichotomy among these two fashions offers diverging paths for AI regulation—strong moral safety and stern enforcement (European) and responsible AI implementation tied with monetary improvement (South Korea). With AI remaking industries and societies, different nations might turn to each model for lessons, crafting a destiny in which AI law is an ongoing international debate.

Conclusion

The South Korean AI Basic Law is a significant development for the entire field of artificial intelligence law. In order to safeguard individual rights and social justice, the law first aims to create a sound balance between innovation and establishing sufficient legal protection.
South Korea is now at the forefront of ethical AI development, but as companies navigate shifting rules, they face new challenges, such as how to take advantage of emerging prospects without violating compliance requirements. This comprehensive regulation will set the stage for other nations that want to regulate AI development without limiting its application globally, making it one of the first AI-compliant laws in Asia.

---

[1] Jeremy Werner, babl, South Korea Enacts AI Basic Act (Dec. 27, 2024), https://babl.ai/south-korea-enacts-ai-basic-act/ 

[2] Complex Discovery, South Korea’s AI Basic Act: A Blueprint for Regulated Innovation (Dec. 27, 2024), https://complexdiscovery.com/south-koreas-ai-framework-act-a-blueprint-for-regulated-innovation/

[3] Monica Behura, ET Legal World, EU AI Act, being a “first mover” may have the “Brussels Effect’ (Apr 22, 2024, 7:22 PM) https://legal.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/editors-desk/eu-ai-act-being-a-first-mover-may-have-the-brussels-effect/109506567

[4] Rebecca Falconer, Axios, Newsom vetoes controversial California AI bill (Sept. 29, 2024) https://www.axios.com/2024/09/30/california-ai-safety-bill-governor-newsom-veto

[5] Grace Nelson, LSE, Risk-based Regulation and the EU AI Act (Nov. 29, 2024) https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2024/11/29/risk-based-regulation-and-the-eu-ai-act/