유럽연합 ‘인공지능법안’의 주요 내용과 시사점

Abstract

This paper summarizes the main contents and characteristics of the EU's Artificial Intelligence Act(AI Act) unveiled by the European Commission on April 21, 2021, and examines the implications that the proposal provides in relation to the enactment of related regulations in South Korea. The AI Act protects European values and fundamental rights by enacting a robust regulatory framework that applies a proportionate regulatory system centred on a risk-based regulatory approach, while strengthening Europe's global competitiveness and industrial base related to AI, facilitating the development of a single market for lawful, safe and trustworthy AI applications and preventing market fragmentation. The characteristics of the AI Act are closely linked to these purposes. First of all, the Act promotes innovation and the development of a free integrated market in Europe on the premise that health, safety and fundamental rights, which have been recognized as important values ​​in EU, are sufficiently guaranteed in relation to AI. Next, a technology-neutral definition of the AI ​​systems is presented, and then the AI ​​systems are classified according to a risk-based approach and the corresponding regulations are applied. Also, it comprehensively specifies the duties of each actor throughout AI ​​systems’ lifecycle and systematically presents the organizations to enforce and supervise the regulations of the Act so that they can be effective. In addition, while promoting relatively strict and consistent regulation, it includes various devices to ensure flexible response according to the development of technology, proportional and flexibility appropriate to the situation. The AI ​​Act has important meaning for South Korea, who need to prepare a normative response to AI. First, it is necessary to prepare legislation to ensure uniformity of discipline and legal stability. Second, related norms and organizations should be systematically rearranged. Third, it is necessary to distinguish between cases in which strict regulations are necessary and not in order to block negative effects on democracy, fundamental rights, and the rule of law while promoting technological development and innovation. In the latter case, it is necessary to consider regulated self-regulation. Fourth, the norms should focus on strengthening transparency by prioritizing human-centered values, recognize the room for fine-tuning for flexible discipline proportional to the situation, and provide equal access and availability must be ensured through broad participation, education and diverse support.