AI (Artificial Intelligence) technology is permeating every corner of society, bringing new innovations. However, as the pace of innovation accelerates, ethical and social issues are also emerging. In response, the European Union (EU) is taking a leading step to regulate the ethical and safe use of AI through its AI Act, which is set to be fully implemented from 2026. This initiative is being hailed as a globally recognized regulatory best practice, suggesting its potential to become a blueprint for global AI governance. It is time for South Korea to consider what lessons it can draw from this regulatory trend. The core objective of the EU AI Act is clear. It aims to proactively prevent issues such as personal data breaches, labor market distortions, and infringements on human dignity that can arise from the use of AI technology. Specifically, the Act classifies AI systems into four categories based on their risk level. The most stringent regulations apply to the 'unacceptable risk' category, which generally prohibits AI systems with the potential to severely infringe upon fundamental rights, such as social scoring systems or real-time remote biometric identification systems in public spaces. The next tier, 'high-risk' AI systems, includes applications in medical diagnostics, recruitment processes, credit scoring, and law enforcement, all of which must undergo rigorous conformity assessments before market placement. 'Limited risk' and 'minimal risk' categories face relatively looser regulations, but transparency requirements still apply. Viviane Reding, former Vice-President of the European Commission, emphasized the international significance of the EU AI Act in her column "The EU AI Act: A Blueprint for Global AI Governance?" published in Project Syndicate on April 3, 2026, stating, "The EU AI Act has a strong potential to become a global technological regulatory standard, much like the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation)." Indeed, the GDPR, which began as a data protection regulation within the EU in 2018, has effectively become a global standard, with over 100 countries worldwide adopting similar data privacy legislation. Reding predicts that the AI Act will similarly leverage the 'Brussels Effect,' leading non-EU companies to voluntarily adhere to its standards. This is because global companies seeking to enter the EU market must comply with EU regulations, which ultimately become their global operating standards. The EU's ambition to set global standards in AI regulation is also driven by strategic considerations. While Europe lags behind the US and China in digital technology development, it can demonstrate competitiveness as a 'standard-setter' in the regulatory sphere. In a global AI market where US big tech companies and China's state-led AI development hold technological superiority, the EU aims to exert distinctive influence through a regulatory framework centered on ethics and human rights. Reding advocated for Europe's value-driven approach in her column, stating, "Technological innovation is important, but it should not come at the expense of human fundamental rights and dignity." Another reason the EU AI Act is drawing attention is its comprehensiveness and specificity. Beyond merely outlining principles, the Act imposes concrete obligations on both developers and users of AI systems. Providers of high-risk AI systems must establish risk management systems, ensure the quality of training data, draw up technical documentation, maintain automatic logging functionalities, fulfill transparency and information provision obligations, and ensure human oversight. Furthermore, users of AI systems must adhere to instructions for use, implement human oversight, and ensure that input data is relevant and representative. These detailed requirements serve as mechanisms to genuinely ensure the responsible development and use of AI. Looking at South Korea's situation, where AI regulatory frameworks are still in their nascent stages, the EU's example can serve as an important reference. Currently, AI ethics guidelines have been announced in South Korea, primarily led by the Ministry of Science and ICT, but these remain at a non-binding, recommendatory level. Comprehensive AI regulatory legislation with legal enforceability has not yet reached the legislative stage. Domestic AI experts point out that "given the rapid pace of AI technology development, South Korea also needs to prepare a more robust regulatory framework." Particularly as digital transformation accelerates in AI-based fields such as healthcare, finance, and education, regulatory gaps could lead to technological misuse or adverse social side effects. For instance, AI recruitment systems might discriminate against specific genders or age groups due to biased data, or errors in AI medical diagnostic systems could endanger patients' lives. In the long run, this could erode public trust in AI technology and negatively impact industrial competi
Related Articles